Rating: 
Summary: Celluloid Mavericks
Review: "Celluloid Mavericks," by Greg Merritt, New York, Thunder's Mouth Press, c2000, 463pp.On the one hand, filmmakers want to be courted by the studios, to receive phone calls telling them that yes, we are going to finance your picture big time. On the other hand, directors want creative control. They do not want Paramount and Warner and Fox and Universal to dictate what they put into their films. Those film- makers who are adamant about creative freedom may actually choose to raise the money for their films on their own, without any help from the big OR small distributors. What they produce completely without help from studios is called independent cinema, or indies. Some of these indies are later picked up by studios. They're still indies. Other filmmakers are willing to accept a even considerable degree of control from the suits in return for wide distribution and big bucks. Their movies are called commercial. As Greg Merritt points out in his lively new book "Celluloid Mavericks: A History of American Independent Film," a large segment of films actually fit into a less precise category that he'd call semi-indies. Semi-indies are those works which are not produced by studios but do have guarantees of distribution before they are made. "Pulp Fiction" is his example of a semi-indie, the $2,500 "David Holzman's Diary," which consists simply of a man talking to a camera, is independent, and "Titanic" is commercial. Merritt's definition is distinct from that of "Variety" critic Emanuel Levy's, who states in his own recent book "Cinema of Outsiders" (reviewed in the February OFCS journal), that an indie is a film produced outside the studio network but one which must essentially be challenging, edgy, a personal vision. While Levy does not recognize the separate category of semi- indies, for his part Merritt does not require his indies to be edgy. He divided the book chronologically rather than topically but within each chapter, he sorts out the movies according to genre--gay films, porno, African-American pix, films that have more gentility than edge (such as "Room with a View"), sexploitation, blaxploitation, horror and the like. What may surprise some readers is that indies did not have their origin within our own lifetimes but actually were given birth in 1896, as one-minute flicks screened between vaudeville acts at Koster and Bial's Music Hall in New York on April 23. One of these flicks, featuring a shot of waves breaking on a beach, caused the audience to recoil with fear of getting drenched. Talk of naivete! Today's audience might, if polite, stifle a yawn at even some of the magical, highly financed pictures produced by IMAX. Since studios until recently had been reluctant to finance pictures representing points of view that challenged American policy, we do not wonder that during the troubled times of the 1930s, movies far to the left of center were not appreciated by the moneyed set. King Vidor won a stream of rejection letters for his proposed "Our Daily Bread" in 1934 but got his movie into production by putting up his own $90,000 and then securing a $125,000 bank loan. Though the movie was screened by Pres. Roosevelt at the White House and was ultimately released by United Artists, controversy mounted. The L.A. Examiner called the movie pinko and the LA Times refused to run ads. Truth to tell "Our Daily Bread" was not a good movie, Merritt acknowledges. The conflicts are slim and the people are not real. When asked to throw their possessions on a common pile, they comply like zombies. Conflict, says the author, should have been born out of the very concept of cooperative lving and its departures from capitalism. "Our Daily Bread" does show people finding the ultimate fulfillment through the strength of a collectivist group. No individual wealth, no structured government, no profit motive. Greg Merritt runs through hundreds of independent and semi- independent films in this manner. The breakthrough pics are given some analysis, brief, of course, since the book weighs in at only 462 pages. For the bulk of movies, Merritt must be content with appraisals of a sentence or two each. Here are some of his incisive statements... He calls the 1995 movie "Safe"--which plays like a disease- of-the-week TV movie but is really a devastating critique of the self-elp movement and the devastating effects of modern society "one of the best movies of the decade." And remember that Merritt is no blurbmeister. He insists that the success of art films is driven by reviews and word-of-mouth; that those who regularly attend nonstudio fare are "typically more discerning than others and place greater emphasis on critical opinion." (Take a bow, Harvey.) When art movies are marketed, the advertsiing is literate and subdued, reflecting an aura of quality and a lack of celebrities or explosions to hype. He describes how an ordinary person can make a micro- budget movie: 1) limit the number of locations and characters, avoiding extreme weather conditions; 2) finance with bank accounts and credit cards; 3) use a nonunion crew or union members willing to work nonunion including friends; 4) shoot 16mm black and white; 5) rent an editing machine. Still you're going to have a hard time because "most movies made without a prior agreement with a studio are never screened in a commercial theater...their directors are never known." "Celluloid Mavericks" is not only good reading for those in the general public who want to know more about the movies but can stand as a handy reference guide for critics who can use the volume to enrich their own writing. (C) Harvey Karten
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book
Review: from the New York Press 3-29-2000 - copyright Matt Zoller Seitz Merritt's book covers a century's worth of off-center cinema, including 1890s nickelodeons, 1940s chitlin-circuit black films, Sam Fuller's genre-busting work in the 50s and 60s, blaxploitation and hardcore porn in the 70s and the Sundance wave of the 80s and 90s. The central idea of free spirits bucking the system unifies waht might have been a too-broad historical text, and Merritt's tart wit enlivens the fact-packed narrative. His prose isn't merely amusing; it's lovingly polished, a real pleasure to read. He's honest enough to admit that most 70s blaxploitation films were garbabe, "rarely as much fun as their posters or soundtracks." He coins a wonderful new phrase to describe the hillbilly flicks that flooded rural drive-ins around the same time: "Whitezploitation." He describes Tom Laughlin's "Billy Jack" as a movie about pacifists who "come to worship a man of violence," and declares, "the real hoot is seeing the messiah take off his boots and kick the grins off rednecks." This isn't one of those fuzzy, ruminative books where the author writes whatever strikes his fancy and crams it into a bulging thematic suitcase after the fact. The preface carefully defines "independent" to mean any movie "financed and produced completely autonomous of all studios," and "semi-indie" as a movie that received studio funding at some point. The definitions cast certain well-known American films in a fresh light. I didn't know, for example, that the Oscar-winning "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" didn't get a dime's worth of funding from any studio. Chapter to chapter and page for page, "Celluloid Mavericks" is an indespensable book, as entertaining as it is informed.
Rating:
Summary: "Indispensible book, as entertaining as it is informed"
Review: from the New York Press 3-29-2000 - copyright Matt Zoller Seitz Merritt's book covers a century's worth of off-center cinema, including 1890s nickelodeons, 1940s chitlin-circuit black films, Sam Fuller's genre-busting work in the 50s and 60s, blaxploitation and hardcore porn in the 70s and the Sundance wave of the 80s and 90s. The central idea of free spirits bucking the system unifies waht might have been a too-broad historical text, and Merritt's tart wit enlivens the fact-packed narrative. His prose isn't merely amusing; it's lovingly polished, a real pleasure to read. He's honest enough to admit that most 70s blaxploitation films were garbabe, "rarely as much fun as their posters or soundtracks." He coins a wonderful new phrase to describe the hillbilly flicks that flooded rural drive-ins around the same time: "Whitezploitation." He describes Tom Laughlin's "Billy Jack" as a movie about pacifists who "come to worship a man of violence," and declares, "the real hoot is seeing the messiah take off his boots and kick the grins off rednecks." This isn't one of those fuzzy, ruminative books where the author writes whatever strikes his fancy and crams it into a bulging thematic suitcase after the fact. The preface carefully defines "independent" to mean any movie "financed and produced completely autonomous of all studios," and "semi-indie" as a movie that received studio funding at some point. The definitions cast certain well-known American films in a fresh light. I didn't know, for example, that the Oscar-winning "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" didn't get a dime's worth of funding from any studio. Chapter to chapter and page for page, "Celluloid Mavericks" is an indespensable book, as entertaining as it is informed.
Rating:
Summary: a film geek gets his kicks in
Review: i'm a proud film geek and video store employee (ala Q. Tarantino) and i want to give my take on this book. first, i agree with most everything (the postitive stuff) the reviewer from Kirkus said about this. but then i got to support it against the criticisms. and here's why: a.) arbitrary structure - yeah, but how else could you do it? the real strength of this book is its breadth. and it's not confusing at all to leave cassavetes in one chapter & pick his story up again in the next chapter or two. why should it be? when merritt can get it all in one chapter he does--sometimes he cheats that to add an extra movie or two--but a very few people just cover too much ground and too many years to cheat it. i think it's better to do it his way than any other. it's best to analyze a director within certain eras. the cassavetes of 1960 is different from the cassavetes of 1984, and it would've been awkward to have been talking about the cassavetes of '84 in a chapter that covers '60 - '66. b.) writing/editing - there's some typos & the like but no more than you'd expect with any book with this many names & dates & movie titles. and the writing is a lot of fun and superior to most any other film book--trust a film geek, i've read a lot. it actually reads like a novel at times (as in the beginning scene with the writer of "Birth of a Nation" watching his own movie than greeting the director). c.) catalogue of plot synopsis - yeah, but that's not bad. you need plot synopsis for a lot of these movies because they're so rare. a lot of them from the silent era and '30s are lost now. we need to know what they're about. it's not like he's giving plot synopsises of Gone With the Wind. many of these are little known or little seen (trust a video store jockey, some haven't even made it to video/DVD or they're very rare or out of print). telling us what the movies are about is necessary. d.) adequate intro for someone who knows no film history - i guess this isn't a criticism, but i still think it's wrong. i think this book is best for people who know film history very well. maybe someone who knows only a little should start with another book & read about the mainstream classics first. come on, there is a lot of rare stuff here & lots of new research on the popular stuff. this book is for people who love movies & movie history & still want to know more. this is a true movie-lover book, not a movie-virgin book. e.) more vigorous works out there - where? maybe on geometry, but not on independent film. nobody has written a more vigorous work on independent film, ever. that's a fact, jack. (but then there's barely been any books on this topic.) nobody's covered the full scope like merritt has. just in the last year there's been a couple other books on independent film, but they only cover the last 10-20 years, only "art films" and basically all they are are true catalogues of plots--and boy are their listings arbitrary CONCLUSION: all in all, this is one of my favorite film books. is it the best? maybe. i like lots of different movies (some independent, some mainstream, some foreign). it's certainly the best book on independent film. i know movies really well & i learned something new on most every page.
Rating:
Summary: a film geek gets his kicks in
Review: i'm a proud film geek and video store employee (ala Q. Tarantino) and i want to give my take on this book. first, i agree with most everything (the postitive stuff) the reviewer from Kirkus said about this. but then i got to support it against the criticisms. and here's why: a.) arbitrary structure - yeah, but how else could you do it? the real strength of this book is its breadth. and it's not confusing at all to leave cassavetes in one chapter & pick his story up again in the next chapter or two. why should it be? when merritt can get it all in one chapter he does--sometimes he cheats that to add an extra movie or two--but a very few people just cover too much ground and too many years to cheat it. i think it's better to do it his way than any other. it's best to analyze a director within certain eras. the cassavetes of 1960 is different from the cassavetes of 1984, and it would've been awkward to have been talking about the cassavetes of '84 in a chapter that covers '60 - '66. b.) writing/editing - there's some typos & the like but no more than you'd expect with any book with this many names & dates & movie titles. and the writing is a lot of fun and superior to most any other film book--trust a film geek, i've read a lot. it actually reads like a novel at times (as in the beginning scene with the writer of "Birth of a Nation" watching his own movie than greeting the director). c.) catalogue of plot synopsis - yeah, but that's not bad. you need plot synopsis for a lot of these movies because they're so rare. a lot of them from the silent era and '30s are lost now. we need to know what they're about. it's not like he's giving plot synopsises of Gone With the Wind. many of these are little known or little seen (trust a video store jockey, some haven't even made it to video/DVD or they're very rare or out of print). telling us what the movies are about is necessary. d.) adequate intro for someone who knows no film history - i guess this isn't a criticism, but i still think it's wrong. i think this book is best for people who know film history very well. maybe someone who knows only a little should start with another book & read about the mainstream classics first. come on, there is a lot of rare stuff here & lots of new research on the popular stuff. this book is for people who love movies & movie history & still want to know more. this is a true movie-lover book, not a movie-virgin book. e.) more vigorous works out there - where? maybe on geometry, but not on independent film. nobody has written a more vigorous work on independent film, ever. that's a fact, jack. (but then there's barely been any books on this topic.) nobody's covered the full scope like merritt has. just in the last year there's been a couple other books on independent film, but they only cover the last 10-20 years, only "art films" and basically all they are are true catalogues of plots--and boy are their listings arbitrary CONCLUSION: all in all, this is one of my favorite film books. is it the best? maybe. i like lots of different movies (some independent, some mainstream, some foreign). it's certainly the best book on independent film. i know movies really well & i learned something new on most every page.
Rating:
Summary: Everything's that's cool about the movies
Review: More than 100 years of the coolest movies. This is the first book to map out and detail the whole history of indie film. It's a truly wild ride, very informative, and a great read! Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: my fave film book
Review: This book blew me away. I love the way it covers the whole spectrum of indie film, not just "art" but "exploitation" as well. The story of how these films came to be against great odds makes for great reading. I learned something knew on every page. Highly recommended for fans of non-Hollywood films.
Rating:
Summary: my fave film book
Review: This book blew me away. I love the way it covers the whole spectrum of indie film, not just "art" but "exploitation" as well. The story of how these films came to be against great odds makes for great reading. I learned something knew on every page. Highly recommended for fans of non-Hollywood films.
Rating:
Summary: among the best film books
Review: This is a very thorough book. I liked the way it covered most everything from the lowest trash to the highest art--as long as it was made outside of Hollywood. Whether or not you're a film fanatic, this is a great read.
Rating:
Summary: THE BEST BOOK ON THE TOPIC
Review: This is the best book ever written on independent film. I wish I could give it move than 5 stars, because Celluloid Mavericks is a pure pleasure to read: witty, informative and always extremely entertaining. No other book comes close to its breadth and detail, especially in regards to the previously uncharted territory between 1896 and 1960. This is my all-time favorite film book, well deserving of its many raves reviews.
| 
